The pros and cons of GM foods have been argued for years now but the subtle (and possibly more dangerous) impact of GM microbes has escaped public attention. There is evidence that GM corn pollen has adversely affected monarch butterflies. Microevolutionary changes have been noted in earthworms that have incorporated the modified microbes. The scientists who are fiddling with the lock on Pandora's box seem to have forgotten basic scientific principles: namely that of the food chain.

Genetic modification has been applied to many other things besides crops. We have to ask ourselves, "do we really need glow in the dark pets? or pigs that bear spinach genes? or goats that produce spider silk?"

While Europe banned the import of GM foods and required the strict labeling of foods, North America is running full steam ahead with blinders firmly in place. We've even placed Roger Beachy, THE pioneer in GM crops, as US farm science chief. Although he claims to have never worked for Monsanto, he has kept uncomfortably close ties with them.

GM microbes have proven very profitable to those in the industry. There is even a GM microbe that can detect the presence of gold deposits in soil. [Reith and Grass have developed a genetically modified version of C. metallidurans that produces a visible response when the detox genes are switched on. "When the microbes come into contact with gold, they flash a light that can be detected using a hand-held photometer."]

Especially frightening implications are to be considered with "genome smuggling"; a process that "hijacks the recipient cell recognition enzyme and stops it from working." With the giddiness that only a mad scientist could exhibit, the discoverers of this process gleefully announce that they now have the tools to "make large scale changes to bacterial organisms that were not possible before."

"Since breeding is cheaper and easier than genetic engineering, the researchers hope the breakthrough will herald development of monkeys that are better models of human disease than genetically modified mice."

Originally posted by Peter Brake
reply to post by whitewave

---

I figure the problem goes back to greed and irresponsibility. We do not require GMO's to survive and grow as a species.
We could boil the gm soya before selling to the public. This would degrade the dna so at least an increase in mutation attempts would probably stop.

A lot of medicines are being created from gm now so their is public resistance to the truth being told. Scientists are clever enough to find away pass the hurdles of these problems, they just need to face up.

An electron spectrometer would tell us what reactions are happening between H1N1, GMO's, antibiotics, heavy metals and heat shock. What we learn could save the human race, and what we learn also furthers the biotech science. They could make their medicines better. (I still wouldn't take them though)

Originally posted by whitewave

Originally posted by Peter Brake
reply to post by whitewave

---

Doesn't it seem like ALL problems go back to greed and irresponsibility? The GMO fans claim that hunger can be eradicated by their methods. I fail to see how outlawing backyard gardens, poisoning the soil with Monsanto's RoundUp, and genetically modifying microbes to outsmart our human immune defenses will help eradicate hunger.

GMO can not by itself eradicate hunger, (unless of course it wipes us all out - no people no hunger). The population will keep growing (and I hope it does) we live in an abundant universe and we have everything we need. Vertical farming sorts out growing space for ever we eventualy will need to find more minerials, that is all.

The arguements they offer only have some merit in health products, the rest is about money and marketing. The health benefits for the few are far outweighed by the harm being done to the many and this is now before we face what will come. Perhaps they figure that when these mutations get really bad they will be employed to fix the problems. It's greed and irresponsibility, the wakeup call will be remembered for all time - if any survive.

This is why I am asking for this testing. Get them to face the facts and repair what they done. Find another way.

I'm wondering if you can comment on this other thread below. The guy I'm talking to is a maker of vaccines.


Originally posted by Peter Brake
I am wondering if your learned self could debunk this for me please don't pull your shots.
Antibiotics increase gene transfer (mutation) upto 10000 times.
The transgene from GMO's (genetically modified organisms) is upto 30 times more available to a virus looking for a gene to mutate with.
Heavy metals increase gene transfer rates. (their is mercury in the vaccine right?)
Finally heat shock increases gene transfer.

It seems to me the swine flu is not yet bad, scientists and government is concerned of it mutating. You could argue that the vaccine will lessen the chances of it mutating, but the mercury is stored in the body and increases gene transfer. Giving the vaccine to everyone one is helping the next flu to mutate into a real killer. (yes or no?)



No, none of this is completely true, although there are cases in bacteria. We are dealing with a virus, an RNA virus which basically means it follows absolutely no pattern for genetic mutations of anytype. Infact, there is not a single defined genetic code for any RNA virus. They actually function in groups called quasispecies, which are a group of genetically similar strains, but are still vastly genetically different. The RNA viruses are mainly only single stranded RNA, which makes them far, far less stable than double stranded DNA. Anything, and I mean anything can mutate the strains. Every time the bug infects someone, its going to mutate. This is shown through serial passages of the flu into animals over and over and over and over and over again... you can actually watch the virus become stronger and stronger each time it is passed through another animal.

That is why I care if you guys get the vaccine, because it only takes a handfull of people, to pass the bug around, giving it time in vivo to accumulate genetic changes, and possibly spawn a super flu, which there would be absolutely no vaccine for.

That's the truth behind the vaccine, no punches pulled.


I replied
Okay I read about this, the virus is mutating at about the maximum that it can. If the virus has a range of genes to choose from and an increased ability to collect these genes then it has a increased range of mutations with which to successfully survive our immune system.

A greater range of mutated viruses means more survive and we have a greater chance for them to become more lethal.

Upset - no reply